Scrutable

shpalman wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 8:36 pm

jdc wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 8:12 pm

“... this one could be faster because we know the efficacy is high so we need a smaller number of patients.”

Does it actually work like that?

If you want the trial to go faster and/or need fewer subjects you need to do it in a hotter covid spot.

By the way, the Guardian have mentioned that data will be published in the Lancet over the weekend.

sTeamTraen wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:49 pm See this excellent article from the always-fabulous Hilda Bastian.

A participant who had a severe reaction to a particularly high dose has talked in detail about how bad it was: If reactions even half as bad as this were to be common for some of these vaccines,

Millennie Al wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:50 am If you follow that link and read about this particular participant, you find thet he was in a phase 1 clinical trial which administered a range of doses, of which he likely got the highest dose. Since the whole point of the trial was to find the approriate dose, it is to be expected that it will include testing doses which are found to be covering the whole range from ineffective to excessive. It is scaremongering to point to a small number of advserse reactions in a phase 1 trial as if they were likely to recur in an approved vaccine.

Millennie Al wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:50 am Overall, the whole process is thoroughly unsatisfactory. If there are results they should be published: if they are not ready for publication, then they're not results. While it is understandable that scientific papers might be delayed while analysis is checked and wording is perfected, there is no reason why the underlying figures should not be published immediately. It should not be necessary to reverse engineeer data out of press releases.

To investigate factors associated with intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,500 UK adults, recruited from an existing online research panel. Data were collected between 14th and 17th July 2020.

64% of participants reported being very likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 27% were unsure, and 9% reported being very unlikely to be vaccinated.

jdc wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:42 pm Survey of vaccination intention: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 20.1846397

To investigate factors associated with intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,500 UK adults, recruited from an existing online research panel. Data were collected between 14th and 17th July 2020.

64% of participants reported being very likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 27% were unsure, and 9% reported being very unlikely to be vaccinated.

shpalman wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 3:55 pm Where are you getting this 2:1 thing from?

page_15 wrote:... Approximately 30 000 participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive 2 IM doses of either 5 × 1010 vp (nominal, ± 1.5 × 1010 vp) AZD1222 (n = approximately 20 000) or saline placebo (n = approximately 10 000)...

jimbob wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:16 am

jimbob wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:04 am
Inside Science had a discussion about vaccine effectiveness, and the interviewee obviously got it wrong, as she was implying that it was worth vaccination with a 40% effectiveness on occasion.

She was saying it was the ratio of control:trial so a 90% effectiveness meant that 90% of the infections were in the control leg.

It was clearly a brain fart on her part.

Martin Y wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:53 pm

shpalman wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 3:55 pm Where are you getting this 2:1 thing from?

Steamy's link to the Wired article mentions it and has a link to the protocol itself:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ctr-med-7111/D ... CSP-v2.pdf

page_15 wrote:... Approximately 30 000 participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive 2 IM doses of either 5 × 1010 vp (nominal, ± 1.5 × 1010 vp) AZD1222 (n = approximately 20 000) or saline placebo (n = approximately 10 000)...

Andrew(not Gelman) wrote: The results combine two trials. One in the UK, with 12,390 participants, one in Brazil with 10,300 participants, so 22,690 participants all up. In the non-placebo group in Brazil, all participants received two full doses. In the group in the UK, 2,791 participants received a half dose and a full dose, and some number received two full doses. The total number of participants receiving two full doses was 8,895, but it is not stated how many of these were in Brazil and how many in the UK, giving 11,636 receiving the vaccine in total – there is a transposition error in the paper. Of the 11,636, 30 became infected. Of the total placebo group, 101 became infected, giving rise to the 70% overall figure, although I can’t get exactly 70.4%.

The 90% claim is for the 2,791 who received the half dose – a lot of speculation along the lines of the above as to how many of these got sick, but most people seem to think either 2 or 3.

There has been some criticism on combining the results from 2 different studies in different countries, but we’ll just have to wait for the actual data to be published to see what the exact numbers were.

This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137.

Continuing the spate of stunning news about COVID-19 vaccines, the biotech company Moderna announced the final results of the 30,000-person efficacy trial for its candidate in a press release today: Only 11 people who received two doses of the vaccine developed COVID-19 symptoms after being infected with the pandemic coronavirus, versus 185 symptomatic cases in a placebo group. That is an efficacy of 94.1%, the company says, far above what many vaccine scientists were expecting just a few weeks ago.

More impressive still, Moderna’s candidate had 100% efficacy against severe disease. There were zero such COVID-19 cases among those vaccinated, but 30 in the placebo group. The company today plans to file a request for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and is also seeking a similar green light from the European Medicines Agency.

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:03 pm

More impressive still, Moderna’s candidate had 100% efficacy against severe disease. There were zero such COVID-19 cases among those vaccinated, but 30 in the placebo group.

tom p wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:14 am This is what a considered, but express, authorisation looks like
So is this
And this is what indecent haste for pathetic jingoistic purposes looks like
There is no chance that Pfizer provided their data to the MHRA earlier than providing it to the EMA. The MHRA has rushed through approval in 1 day. 1. Day.
I never thought the MHRA would be corrupted by this government. I knew that there would be a race to be the first to approve a vaccine, but I assumed that they would at least make a show of doing even a cursory check of the data, maybe give it a week, but no. Shameful. This is drug approval by press release.
There is no part of the state that won't be abused and broken by this government. If you are living in the UK, you have to assume that the rule of law will no longer apply.

tom p wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:14 am This is what a considered, but express, authorisation looks like
So is this
And this is what indecent haste for pathetic jingoistic purposes looks like
There is no chance that Pfizer provided their data to the MHRA earlier than providing it to the EMA. The MHRA has rushed through approval in 1 day. 1. Day.
I never thought the MHRA would be corrupted by this government. I knew that there would be a race to be the first to approve a vaccine, but I assumed that they would at least make a show of doing even a cursory check of the data, maybe give it a week, but no. Shameful. This is drug approval by press release.
There is no part of the state that won't be abused and broken by this government. If you are living in the UK, you have to assume that the rule of law will no longer apply.

The UK has already ordered 40m doses - enough to vaccinate 20m people.

Around 10m doses should be available soon, with the first 800,000 arriving in the UK in the coming days.